Re: Who gets out more, the UL or the BC camper?
on 04/21/2013 15:37:37 MDT

I can't believe I'm replying to this thread.Bushcrafting is a lot of work and is limited in the areas where practicing it is appropriate.Therefore, people that get out a lot, will do proportionately less BC & more UL.

"tom k, you misread what the guy said, he didn't say he could go for 14 days with 10 pounds base weight, he said with a 10 pound pack." See the difference?"

Nor did I say that is what he said, Harald. Actually, what he said is: "Our adventurer sets out. He (being a man I will NOT speak for women) has a ten pound backpack. His full skin out weight is twenty pounds." So, his pack ends up being 20 pounds, including somewhere in the neighborhood of 6 pounds of consumables, assuming clothing worn weighing in the neighborhood of 4 pounds, more if his clothing worn is less. Do you see the difference? He mentioned no number of days, but followed up with: "To the UL'ers: You have ten pounds on your back, how many days can you stay out with it?" It was that comment to which I originally responded with MY 14 DAY answer based on my 11 pound base weight, an insignificant difference of one pound to which he objected. For a strict apples to apples comparison, based on a 20 pound total weight for both of us, I should have responded 5 plus/6 days, because my clothing worn is 3.5 pounds, my food per day weighs 19 ounces, and I do not cook if I want to travel really light or am going to be in bear country, therefore I need no fuel. Where the 14 day number came from is what I have figured to be the maximum I can comfortably carry in my OHM, extrapolated with complete confidence from field experience on 11 day trips with an OHM plus non UL field experience on trips ranging up to 17 days unsupported. The 14 day full skin out weight would be: clothing worn = 3.5#; base weight stripped down to 9# for a trip of this length, because we're no longer talking hypothetically(i.e. no camera, stove, fuel, etc); food = 16.5# @ 20 oz/day(add 1 oz of coconut oil for extra calories due to trip length) for 13 days plus 4 oz for lunch on final day. The grand total is 29#. I do not count water because it varies all over the place. Suffice it to say for a long trip like this I would choose a route that offered easy access to water for the first few days, and would carry a max of 1# for a max total of 30#. So, for 9-10 pounds more than our apples to apples 20 pount total weight, I can stay out 14 days. It would be interesting to know how long a BCer could stay out by foraging and remaining at a 20 pound total weight; I suspect the answer would vary all over the map, depending on skill level and availability of forage. However, I doubt it would be 14 days, simply because it is very hard to obtain sufficient calories by foraging alone, unless one is hunting, and even then it is a challenge. Fish do not supply a lot of calories, as I learned the hard way on a 16 day trip long ago, nor do berries, roots, salad greens, etc.

"You most certainly cannot go anywhere with an 11 pound pack for 14 days as an UL backpacker."

True enough. That figured referred to base weight, as did his hypothetical scenario with a 10 pound base weight and 20 pound total weight. Hopefully I clarified that above, although I would have thought it was pretty obvious. At any rate, I guess I should have spelled it out.

"It's important to actually read what people say when responding"

I think I read what he said pretty carefully. However, I should have made the original response an apples to apples response.

You are way off the mark here, Harald, based on your faulty assumption of 2 pounds per day for my consumables, as I explained above. You would do well in future not to make such assumptions about other hiker's food requirements and cook/no cook styles.

In closing, I would like to indulge in a little thread drift regarding posting etiquette. My original post, whatever you want to say about the contents, was civil in tone. The response it received from Mr Vinzant was not, to say the least, and your response, Harald, was, as so often seems to be the case with you, downright condescending, as if you were trying to explain something simple to an especially slow child. In the event, you were a bit off the mark yourself. Neither attitude is conducive to a productive discussion. The actual content of your posts get lost when the recipient either responds in kind of simply walks away, leaving the discussion either unfinished or spiraling downward into a flame war. When I post, I am totally willing to listen to any and all criticisms of what I post, in fact I welcome them, and feel it is my right to reciprocate. Civilly. I am all in favor of discussion, debate, even vigorous argument, but when the posts turn ad hominum or condecending I object. That happens all too often, IMO, and has ended many a good discussion prematurely, to the detriment of the community.

>>Huh? So what do you call someone that follows a school of thought? Followers of solipsism are solipsists. Those who practice math are mathematicians. Those who practice physics are physicists. Those that are American citizens are Americans. So why exactly doesn't it work as a personal identity?

There are quantifiable criteria for getting to call yourself a physicist or an American. When you start drawing those lines around something as varied as outdoor recreation, you get a bunch of false distinctions that result in people getting heated in defense of "their" identity. In reality, context matters and an arbitrary line between "ULer" and "BCer" is meaningless. If a person uses any sort of survival skills or natural materials they are effectively practicing bushcraft. If a person deliberately seeks to minimize their carried weight through assessing their needs and eliminating redundant items, they are effectively following UL principles. Everyone here does the latter and almost everyone has probably done the former at one time or another. Claiming BC/UL as a personal identity is just picking a tribe to join, and the only practical effect of it is determining what side of the argument you're on in threads like these. :)

I was not looking for a fight. The condescension you mentioned started with your response to something I said:

"Why chop up a bunch of trees and dig up a bunch of soil, thereby disrupting root systems and associated mycorhizomes, not to mention all sorts of insects, worms, etc? Hardly LNT, IMO. Just wondering..."

That is what came across. You used a ridiculous definition of "LNT" making your entire post come off as insulting my intelligence. I had no problem with you, or your opinion until as you put it:

"as if you were trying to explain something simple to an especially slow child"

I was trying to keep it simple, not insulting, but simple.

If you were not trying to come across as "downright condescending," now you know you did...

In my communication with someone earlier (in THIS thread) they pointed out I misunderstood them. I apologized and corrected it. You however have gone holier than thou thinking that you can apply rules to everyone but yourself.

"My original post, whatever you want to say about the contents, was civil in tone."

Now that you know that is NOT the case, what are you planning to do from here? I do not need more enemies in life. I have shown I can admit when I am wrong.

FWIW, I agree with what you said about base pack weight. I was not confused by what you meant, and appreciate you following the same convention I used.

"I was not looking for a fight. The condescension you mentioned started with your response to something I said:

"Why chop up a bunch of trees and dig up a bunch of soil, thereby disrupting root systems and associated mycorhizomes, not to mention all sorts of insects, worms, etc? Hardly LNT, IMO. Just wondering..."

Everett - First off, I admire your effort to achieve a positive resolution to our exchange. That takes both courage and good intent. I shall endeavor to respond in kind. Please bear with me while I try to reconstruct the chain of events as I see it. My first post was in response to the following segment of a post you made earlier, as follows: "Once there he no longer relies on the Gatewood cape and net tent he brought. He collects branches to put around a FELLED(my caps for emphasis) log creating a rather nice improvised shelter. He lays the branches on thick, processing them with his Grunsfors Bruks when necessary. He whips out his Cold Steel shovel and starts the process of placing a layer of dirt over the outside branches. Once a layer of dirt is down another layer of branches covers that, followed by another layer of dirt. The shelter's built."

The dictionary definition of "felled" is to cut, chop, knock down a tree, according to a dictionary link, below. So, I hope you can see why, given your mention of a Grunsfors Bruk hatchet, I might have concluded that your hypothetical BC/ULer might have done the cutting. This was followed by using a shovel to add two layers of dirt to a surface large enough to provide shelter for a grown man. Then, at the end of your post you wrote the following:

"He tears down camp spreading the foliage that covered his lean-to. He breaks up the fire pit, buries ashes, and collects any trash. By the time he is done an Army sniper would not know that this was a camp site."

All of this, taken together, was what caused me to respond as I did. At this point, I would like to separate the discussion of my post into 2 parts, the wording, and the content, because I am potentially willing to change the wording, even apologize for it, but the content in response to your original post, as expressed, I am not. It is beyond credibility, at least to me, to consider the scenario you provided as LNT. We will just have to disagree on that, I'm afraid. My intent in my response was to express incredulity, not condescension, and I am still having trouble seeing how you would interpret it as condescending. I would be inclined to paper it over by apologizing even though I do not believe what I wrote was condescending, however I fear that would take us down the slippery slope to allowing you to determine the definition of what is condescending, holier than thou, etc. Instead, I propose that we throw it open to the other posters to this thread for comment, if they are willing to do so. If the verdict is that I was being condescending, I will sincerely apologize to you forthwith, and engage in some serious self reflection before posting in future to any controversial topic. If the verdict is that you are being overly sensitive, I hope you will adjust your approach accordingly.

Definition of felled.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/felled

"You used a ridiculous definition of "LNT" making your entire post come off as insulting my intelligence. I had no problem with you, or your opinion until as you put it:

"as if you were trying to explain something simple to an especially slow child""

I submit that my definition of LNT or, more accurately, Leave Less Trace was anything but ridiculous, given what you posted. I'm sorry, I just don't see it your way here.

"If you were not trying to come across as "downright condescending," now you know you did..."

Again, I suggest we submit it to the community for resolution. Just because you say so does not make it so.

"In my communication with someone earlier (in THIS thread) they pointed out I misunderstood them. I apologized and corrected it. You however have gone holier than thou thinking that you can apply rules to everyone but yourself."

I think it is you who are attempting to apply your own rules. I prefer to abide by community standards. Are you willing to do so as well?

"Now that you know that is NOT the case, what are you planning to do from here?"

Abide by the community's decision, if it is rendered. If not, you and I will have to figure it out ourselves, or try to stay out of each other's way.

"I do not need more enemies in life. I have shown I can admit when I am wrong."

If I am shown to be wrong, as I said, I will apologize to you, sincerely. As for enemies, this is not important enough for that word to even enter the conversation. We had a disagreement, no more. Hopefully we are now on the way to sorting it out.You are clearly an intelligent fellow with a lot to contribute to BPL, and it would be good if we could dialogue without it degenerating into a flame war. With a little good will and perseverance, I'm sure we can put this to rest.

"If I have offended you, I apologize. I don't need another person to avoid in life."

Let's make it a reciprocal apology, Everett, and proceed henceforth in an atmosphere of cordial dialogue when our interests intersect in the same thread. I have pretty much chalked up the acrimony to a combination of our different posting styles and this being our first encounter; the one dimensional nature of the Internet, which does not convey the various non linguistic cues so important to effective communication, didn't help either, IMO. It has been resolved amicably, as far as I'm concerned. As you said, "we have no problem here".

I'm a lightweight backpacker (not UL) but, being an elder of the tribe I DO have "bushcraft" skills taught to me when I was in the Boy Scouts in the 1950s.

Yes, I know how to use an axe quite well (and sharpen it). I know many lashings and knots. I know how to (and have made) lean-tos. Back in the day we called these skills "Pioneering" and all Scouts had to learn them at risk of losing their manliness if they didn't. There was even a Pioneering merit badge. I kid you not.

Bushcrafting is just Pioneering under a different name. It's 50's era Scouting skills.

I don't see the two groups, backpackers and bushcrafters, as different groups. I have some bushcraft skills, and some lightweight backpacking skills. And some mountaineering skills, and some orienteering skills, and some cooking and survival skills. I have been on backpacks where I had to make tent stakes and poles from sticks, where I improvised water filters, cooked fish, and I could rig a shelter if I have to. It would be incorrect to assume bushcrafter folks don't backpack or vice versa. I just finished making a knife for my son's Eagle rank, kind of a bushcraft project.

Its good for backpackers to have a wide range of skills, and to put ultra light backpackers up as some kind of elite club is not useful or accurate.